Pages

September 19, 2007

Francona's Excuse As Bad As Gagne's Pitches

Gordon Edes writes that "Terry Francona felt he had to find out last night whether he could trust Eric Gagne in October. ... For the first time in almost a month, Francona called upon Gagne to protect a lead." Tito:

There were a lot of reasons to keep him out there and pitch and have success. If it doesn't work, it hurts. It hurts all of us. I think it's the right thing to do. That doesn't make it easier. ... We believe, even when other people don't or it's hard to believe. I think that's part of why we are successful. It certainly doesn't feel like it tonight.

That's unacceptable.

Francona is not stupid. He knew Gagne had nothing -- after a two-out walk, a single, a walk, a walk (and a line-drive double that resulted in the inning-ending out) -- yet he did nothing. He chose to stay with Gagne and lose the game. Gagne already feels like shit; leaving him out there thinking his manager has faith in him to get out of his own jam is meaningless.

This has been a blind spot for Francona for several seasons. The two worst (or best) examples were his unyielding belief in the talents of Kevin Millar in 2005 and Mark Loretta in 2006. Both players were out-making machines in the lineups, yet they played day after agonizing day. Faith-based managing does not result in wins.

It seemed like [after walking Thomas], it looked like he wanted to throw the ball through the backstop. He got a little revved up and it didn't end very well. ... We wanted Gagne to get out of it. Two quick outs, that's his inning to get out of.

There won't be any games in October if Francona doesn't start managing to win.

56 comments:

I have been a Francona defender for a long time but I'm thisclose to throwing him under the bus right now. Why oh why does he always give guys just enough rope to hang themselves with? How does that build confidence in anyone?

I have been as big a Francona apologist as you could find, and even I find last night indefensible. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go pluck some hairs so I can finish the beard on my Eric Gagne voodoo doll.

"There won't be any games in October if Francona doesn't start managing to win."

Really. Find a paper bag and take some deep breaths. Better yet, find the paper bag with the Klonopin in it. There will be October games, and for them the Sox will need more of a bullpen than Papelbon, DelCarmen and Timlin. Gagne has the stuff and the history to be the answer, but if he isn't, (and you better hope he is because Okajima sure isn't) then better to find out now.

It is September, the time of year that winners gather the information and make the adjustments that carry them deep in the playoffs. The Sox have the luxury of doing so with a spot assured. Francona has his eyes on the prize. It isn't his fault that Gagne isn't coming around yet, but it is his job to find the combination that works.

Red Sox TV play-by-play man Don Orsillo is headed to the postseason — though probably not with the team whose games he broadcasts.

Orsillo, now in his seventh year with NESN, has been tabbed by TBS to work baseball’s Division Series, according to broadcast industry sources.

It’s unknown whether Orsillo will work a National League or American League series. Matchups have yet to be determined since teams and seeding are yet to be finalized. Orsillo, who teams with Jerry Remy on NESN’s telecasts, will be paired with another analyst on his TBS assignment. TBS plans to use Hall of Famers Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. in some capacity for the postseason.

As the clouds darken over Red Sox Nation, and whispers of the c-word (collapse) begin to be heard, there is a saner perspective -- and one that the Red Sox have evidently adopted. The Sox are correctly being managed for the playoffs (magic number 4) and not the division (magic number 9).

This is the intelligent approach, fan hysteria aside. Winning the division confers a bit of prestige that basically lasts from the day of clinching until the day the playoffs start. After that, all that matters is playoff success. Does anybody really care who won the AL East in 2004?

But what about home field advantage? Surely that matters. Well, no. Although the numbers can perhaps be criticized for small sample size, they definitively say otherwise. In the twelve years since the wild card has been part of baseball, 96 teams have qualified for the playoffs -- 72 division winners and 24 wild cards. Here are the results:

World Series:8 of 72 division winners have won (11.1%)4 of 24 wild cards have won (16.7%)

The wild card teams have won the World Series at half again the rate of the division winners. Being a wild card hardly seems like a significant disadvantage.

How about in the earlier rounds, where the wild card teams always have home field disadvantage:

League Championship Series (ie, made it to World Series):16 of 72 division winners have won (22.2%)8 of 24 wild cards have won (33.3%)

Once again, the wild cards teams have won at half again the rate of the division winners. Finally, let's look at the first round results, only considering the series that included a wild card team:

Division Series:10 of 24 division winners have won (41.7%)14 of 24 wild card winners have won (58.3%)

This is truly amazing. Despite always being matched against the division winner with the best (or second-best) record, and always playing games 1, 2 and 5 on the road, the wild cards still won at a .583 clip. In the last five years it's been even more lopsided, with the wild card winning 80% of the time in the first round.

So it's time to take a deep breath, and be happy the Sox have a manager and front office who evidently realize this. They are setting the rotation and giving the key starters extra rest, trying to get Manny 100% healthy, resting Okajima and trying to right Gagne (though that may be a lost cause), rather than pulling out all the stops to secure the division title.

Here is the bottom line: If the Red Sox win as few as three of their last ten games, Detroit would have to run the table to deny Boston a playoff spot.

Has anyone considered a Dodger curse on the Red Sox? I apologize if this has been brought up before, but the three Red Sox who have yet to really become part of the team, in my mind, are Gagne, Drew, and Lugo: all new acquisitions, all with a Dodger "taint," all either partial or utter disappointments. To the Dodger gods: 1916 was a long time ago. Now, please, I beg you, leave us be!

But it is Francona's fault for sticking with him as the game was frittered away. You know damn well he wouldn't do that in the playoffs. I wanna see Playoff Tito at the helm and I want to see him there now.

Sorry about using the C word. I completely agree and always have. My use of the word was an unfortunate byproduct of me recklessly trying to salve my angst with a foray into absurdity. Still, given the admittedly small sample size, I'd have to say guys who come from the Dodgers seem to underperform and should be avoided in the future.

Francona wants to see if Gagne can cut the mustard down the strech and be relied on in October.

Fine. I have no problem with that.

How many fucking batters does Tito need to see him walk?How many trips around the mound between pitches does Gagne need to take? How many pitches way the fuck out of the strike zone does Tito need to see before he gets it through his thick fucking skull that Gagne DOESN'T HAVE IT TONIGHT and it's time for another option?

After Gagne was rattled and throwing shit pitches and walked the bases loaded -- and then -- walked in the tying run -- was he really the best option to continue pitching that inning? Was he?

It's like "Gagne in the 8th, Bot in the 9th" was carved in stone last night and Francona couldn't (or wouldn't) do it any other way.

And it would have been a four out save for Papelbon. We're not running Bot out to save every other reliever who gets in a jam. But this was a special case and I think most people here know it. Four friggin' outs. Not 3 innings of work.

And instead of showing Gagne that he "believes in it" or some other happy fucking huckleberry horseshit talk, Gagne is now mor eof a basketcase than he was 24 hours ago. So he is actually IN A WORSE STATE OF MIND to help the Red Sox in the playoffs.

You know damn well he wouldn't do that in the playoffs. I wanna see Playoff Tito at the helm and I want to see him there now.

Why? You think he needs the practice or something? You already give him credit for knowing what to do in the playoffs, now give him credit for knowing what he is doing now.

This is not the playoffs. This is getting ready for the playoffs, and I want to see getting-ready-for-the-playoffs Tito until the playoffs start, or until the Sox playoff chances budge from the near 100% they are now. (See baseballprospectus. Boston still has the highest chance of any MLB team to play in October).

Thankfully Tito (and Theo) understand this, and because they are spending their capital wisely we may well be spared seeing an outcome like last night in October.

I was just thinking about the current crop of former Dodgers when I made my plea for Dodger-avoidance, but now that you mention it, is Dave Roberts the only ex-Dodger to make a significant positive impact on the Bosox? I mean, besides that first baseman, I forget his name, who knocked in over 100 runs in '86. I'm sure I'm missing somebody obvious.

"On what day this month did the Red Sox "assure" themselves of a 2007 playoff spot? I follow the team pretty closely, but I must have missed this bit of good news."

OK, assured was too strong. But if you are really hearing Detroit's footsteps, you ears are far keener than mine.

As for leaving Gagne in, it was time to know. Wouldn't there still have been folks saying he needed another chance if Tito pulled him with one out to make? Admittedly, it felt a little like looking Eastwood in the eye and saying "Man, I got's to know", but at least we know.

It's mid-September with a good lead. There WILL be an October, and I still say laying on a supply of your favorite anxiolytic now is a good idea if you don't want to stroke out and miss it.

When you throw a young pitcher out there and he has a terrific 8 innings of 2 hit ball, then he walks to first man or gives up a hit in the 9th, what do you see? The manager comes out and gets him. You bring him out of the game on a decent to good note instead of leaving him in there to either get out of the jam or get smacked around.

Now, Gagné is a veteran, but there are times where you have to treat a struggling veteran like a rookie. He gives you two quick outs then walks the next man. That's fine. But then he gives up a single, and that's when you have to recognize that it can be very harmful, not just to the team, but to the pitcher's psyche and confidence to leave him in there. Go out and get him, bring in a fresh arm to get the last out. He may not be very happy with the decision, but it's much better than the alternative, and what we saw last night was the alternative.

Managerial losses are some of the most crushing losses, because you know there was something obvious that could have been done different that would likely have yielded a different, more favorable result.

Having said that, if Bot was brought in after that single, or even after Matt Stairs walked to load the bases, and he gives up a 2-run double, you know that the Red Sox got beat with their best man out there, making it a tough loss to swallow for Pap's (and the future's) sake, but we wouldn't be sitting here blaming Francona.

Well, some would. Why bring in Gagné? Why not bring in Okajima? Why not stick with MDC? Those questions would be flowing, as well. But they wouldn't be coming from me. It was a good move to bring in Gagné.

The reality is that when you bring in Papelbon, chances are he's going to mow down that last batter. Instead he just stands in the bullpen and plays a little soft toss.

It just surprises me, really. The manager, more than anyone, is supposed to know when it's time to give him the hook. He saw how bad those pitches were missing, how he couldn't throw a strike except for a get-me-over at 88 on 3-0.

Managerial loss. Friday night was also part-Managerial loss. (Irony: Not bringing in Gagné like the plan was supposed to be.) The game with Tampa Bay where there were men on 2nd and 3rd with Carlos Pena up, and he didn't intentionally walk him. Dong. Luckily the bats bailed Tery out that time.

I can't blame him giving Gagné an audition, but that was like giving a horrible singer too much time in the audition for American Idol.

FWIW, I am with L-girl. I will be crushed if the Sox don't win the division after leading all season, and I also believe that the players will feel that way and may not snap out of it for the playoffs. I say, do or die NOW. None of this saving arms and bats for October.

As for Francona, I believe he is under a spell lately, perhaps that same spell that says that all that counts is October. He has usually been good at pulling ineffective pitchers. I just don't know what is going on. But it sure pisses me off.

MaaloxThis is what I think/hope tonight was all about: getting a final answer on Gagne. We've got one, and it's negative. Too late in the season to be waiting on Gagne now. Time to move on. Until the division/WC is clinched Gagne should not pitch another inning, and he should not be on any playoff roster.

Rudy PembertonI think you are right, but the problem I have is that the Sox didn't need to let him blow the game. If you've got someone warming up from the get go, once there are two men on or the bases are loaded, you go up to Gagne and pull him. You've got your answer, but still a chance to win the game. Had Gagne gotten Adams out, would they feel comfortable going to him in a big spot again? I would hope not.

MaaloxI don't think you do. I don't think you have your answer unless you let him would his way out of trouble - in other words, blow the game. If you throw him a rope, you can still make the excuse to yourself that you're not 100% sure he's toast.I know this sounds crazy, but it's almost as if you have to let the guy destroy himself to eliminate any linering desire you might have to bring him out there again. Like the whole humiliating scene puts the issue to bed for once and all.

If that is the case (about a final test for Gagne), then why did both Francona and Tek in post-game interviews stress how much the team NEEDS him and will NEED him in October? I don't think they have put him out to pasture at all. They are just dumb.

It looks like that answers the question about why Francona didn't go to Gagné in the 8th last Friday night. You have a 3 1/2 game lead in the East, and your magic number for a Playoff spot is 5, I guess you could sacrifice one of them, but you have to play the games. I don't care to what end the sacrifice was for. You don't blow a game like that if you can help it.

Walk, Single, Walk. Bases loaded. You see the way he's throwing wildly, not anywhere near the plate. I just think Terry could have answered his question about Gagné just a little bit sooner. If he pulled Gagné after the third walk to tie the game, Bot or somebody else comes in, gets the out, and you're still tied. Lugo hits his home run the next inning, and suddenly it's a 3-2 ballgame and you're back into the win column. Does Lugo still hit the home run? Not sure, but since he did hit one last night, you have to just assume he would have.

Fortunately, Sox management is trying to maximize World Series chances, not to spare the fragile psyches of certain overwrought fans.

Curt, you should learn a little about the personalities here before you start throwing around words like "fragile psyches" and "overwrought fans".

I am anything but either.

I'm cool and collected (one can curse and be cool and collected at the same time) and I'm a baseball lifer, anything but fragile.

However, I see things differently than you. I want something different from what you want.

I want to win the division.

Maybe it's living in NYC for 25 years, maybe it's the media, maybe it's my Yankee past. But whatever the reasons, my most fervent desires for several years has been for the Sox to win the AL East and for the Yankees not to make the playoffs.

It looks like one of those wishes will probably not come true, but one is still a possibility.

That doesn't make me overwrought or fragile.

And PS a lot of people care who won the division in 2004. That's part of the reason I want it so badly.

L, if it came down to it, would you rather see the Red Sox miss the playoffs beside they let the division go? Or would you rather see them get in as the wild card?

Ish, I would rather see the Red Sox win the division and not advance past the DS than win the wild card and make it to the WS. (I'm repeating myself from another thread, but I imagine I have that license here.)

I would rather not play one moment of October baseball than settle for the wild card, after being in first place all season.

I realize that seems irrational to some, but our love of our sport and our team is not about being rational. Jere and Redsock both maintain that they hate the wild card, despite what it led to in 2004. That's perfectly valid. This is a similar feeling.

I am getting confused here about which thread to post in since we seem to have two going at once with similar themes.

Anyway, Curt said in response to my post: " I don't think the players are nearly as fragile as all that. Sometimes all it takes to snap the players out of it is a successful stolen base."

I think teams falter based on momentum and succeed based on momentum all the time. That doesn't mean they are fragile.

We aren't fragile, and they aren't fragile. But we are all human (well, maybe not BOT, though he proved otherwise last weekend), and human beings are affected by their emotions. That doesn't make them fragile.

Amy, good point re fragility and humanity. All sports have a huge mental/psychological element, and the higher the stakes go, the more that element means. No one is fragile, but to think that blowing the division and settling for the w/c - , after being in 1st place all season - wouldn't have an effect is a bit blind.

I am getting confused here about which thread to post in since we seem to have two going at once with similar themes.

I think I am also bristling a bit at the use of the word "fragile" when directed at something women post.

Mm-hmm. I hear ya.

Allan and I have talked about this a lot. There have been several instances here where 4 or 5 commenters will say the same thing, and one guy directs sarcastic or condescending replies only to me. I have addressed it directly - "Why can't you stay on the topic, why do you have to throw sarcasm at me, but at no one else" - but never get a response.

We see it time and time again. Many men still cannot address women as equals, or handle being disagreed with by a woman (not even put down - just disagreed with!), especially in the supposedly male domain of sports.

I hear you also, L-girl. Things haven't changed that much in all these year. I often speak at a faculty meeting, a man then repeats what I just said, and the point then becomes referred to as "John's point," totally ignoring the fact that I had said it first. And these are damn academics! (Sort of the reverse of what you said about getting attacked for something you said, but you get my point.)

Now we will spark a stream of commentary, I am sure! And I have to bail on you for a bit in order to get home. Be back in about 30 minutes. Hope all stays calm!

you should learn a little about the personalities here before you start throwing around words like "fragile psyches" and "overwrought fans".

I-girl:

Yes, my language was needlessly inflamatory. You have my unqualified apology, and a promise to try to avoid it in the future.

I am also a baseball lifer, and a pretty long life it's been, thank you. Long enough to know what it feels like to be crushed by this game, and on more occasions than I care to remember.

I would rather not play one moment of October baseball than settle for the wild card, after being in first place all season.

I can accept that, even though I may not understand it. And I think it's clear that the Sox powers-that-be don't share that point of view. I'm sure your NYC background gives you a different perspective than I have living in neutral territory (DC area).

For me, the biggest crush would be to dominate all season, then go three and out in October. That's why I have a very big soft spot in my heart for Braves fans.

I think I am also bristling a bit at the use of the word "fragile" when directed at something women post.

While I am in bridge-rebuilding mode, let me say that I can see how that word was taken as it was. As I accept that you are "anything but fragile", please accept that I am (and am committed to be) anything but sexist.

The "certain fans" I had in mind included many of my (predomininatly but not exclusively male) sports-fanatic friends and well as myself. Yes, I definitely qualified as "overwrought" last night, but have since gained (I think) a clearer perspective.

Hi, I am back. First, Redsock, thanks for the odds. I did appreciate it, though 77% isn't as comforting as the 98% had been. But as they say in baseball, batting over .300 is considered very good, so batting at .770 is pretty damn fantastic! I have a serious Sox fan colleague who keeps filling my ears with negativism (I think it's his defense mechanism), so I need some balance here.

Second, L-girl, I have not noticed any sexism here. So far, so good!I guess Curt did not realize how the word "fragile" might be taken as sexist when directed at a woman poster, and that's certainly understandable. (BTW, Curt, your last name isn't Schilling, is it? We all know how 38 loves to blog, and I starting wondering if he had dropped in on us.)